(Immigration) reads:
The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of
U.S. officials to create a new "Berlin Wall" which would keep them captive.
We condemn the U.S. government's policy of barring those refugees from our
country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them
escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on
the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the
fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore,
immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political
creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and
resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare
payments to all other persons.
Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by
the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required
government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers
who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass
workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on
immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and
the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have
entered the country illegally.
My question then is what exactly would "citizenship" mean under these terms?
Wouldn't it be moot? What advantages, privileges, protections, etc. (if any)
would one accrue as a citizen?
Clearly the wording suggests that "citizen" is a different status than
"non-citizen", but under the conditions called for, in what meaningful
way(s)?
The LP Platform Principle I. (Individual Rights and Civil Order) - 23.
(American Indian Rights) reads:
The Issue: The rights of American Indians have been usurped over the years.
The Principle: Individuals should be free to select their own citizenship,
and tribes should be free to select the level of autonomy the tribe wishes.
Solutions: Indians should have their property rights restored, including
rights of easement, access, hunting, and fishing.
Transition: The Bureau of Indian Affairs should be abolished leaving tribal
members to determine their own system of governance. Negotiations should be
undertaken to resolve all outstanding differences between the tribes and the
government.
Here my question is at what point in history do American Indian property
rights begin, and what is the morally justifiable basis for that starting
point?
Thanks,
Jim Faber
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
